Standing Committee E

[Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair]

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

Humfrey Malins: On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. The Minister will recall several prolonged exchanges last Thursday about possible sites for accommodation centres. I asked whether a decision had been taken, and if so, whether it would be announced in the next two or three weeks. I told her that it was important that no decision be taken or announced until both Houses had passed the Bill. She said that the Government had not yet decided the sites. She said:
''We are considering which sites to submit planning applications for . . . An announcement on which sites we intend to submit planning notifications will be made soon, but no decision has been taken about individual sites''.—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 9 May 2002; c. 165.]
 I was keen that members of the Committee should be the first to know about the sites. I told her that she would understand that many of us would regard it as an affront to the parliamentary system if an announcement were made during the next week or two while the Bill was in Committee or in the other place. She said that there was nothing more she could tell us and used the word ''soon''. 
 We were therefore surprised to read in The Independent on Sunday that: 
''Ministers are to build one of three ''villages'' for asylum-seekers on a site where thousands of foot-and-mouth carcasses were buried.''
 It said that a location at Throckmorton airfield in Worcestershire 
''was chosen from a shortlist of eight.''
 There was also an article in the Sunday Express. It seems to my hon. Friends and me that the Minister should have told us if she knew last Thursday that planning applications would be made for particular sites. The question arises whether she failed to tell us about something that she was aware of then. Is an announcement due to be made today in parliamentary questions? If so, it would have been courteous to tell us days ago when the information was available. 
 Would it not be proper for the Minister to let the Committee know the up-to-date position and, if necessary—it is a matter for her to decide—to apologise if she failed to tell us last Thursday something that she knew then? If she did not, that is the end of the matter. If she did, it would help us to know why the Committee was not the first to be informed. Eight sites are mentioned on the internet, including Pershore, Worcestershire; land vacated at Bicester, Oxfordshire; and RAF Newton at West Bridgeford, Nottinghamshire. Are those the three sites proposed for planning applications?

Eric Illsley: I call Angela Eagle.

Angela Eagle: I am happy to respond and would have done so in timely fashion this afternoon in the Chamber at 3.30 pm. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that letters were to be sent to members of the Committee to make the parliamentary answer available simultaneously at 3.30. As he pointed out, however, the information was leaked in the media this morning, so I shall place the information before the Committee ahead of the forthcoming parliamentary answer. I should also stress that no decision to proceed on any site has been taken. As I said on Thursday, that will not happen before Royal Assent.
 Here is the announcement to be made to Parliament at 3.30 pm. The question is: 
''To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to announce the sites on which he will seek planning permission for Accommodation Centres?''.
 The answer is: 
''We will be submitting planning notifications in respect of DSDC Bicester, RAF Newton and QinetiQ Pershore as soon as possible. The notifications will be submitted using the ordinary procedure of Circular 18/84. Consultation with the relevant local authorities will continue, including public meetings.
Further work is required on the sites at Air West Edinburgh, Sully Hospital (Glamorgan) and Hemswell Cliff (Lincolnshire) before a decision can be taken on whether to proceed to planning notifications.
The sites at Hooton Park (Ellesmere Port) and Killingholme (North Lincolnshire) are considered to be unsuitable for the siting of Accommodation Centres. No planning notifications will be submitted in respect of those sites.
Site searching has continued since we made our initial announcement, as we said it would. In addition to the sites we have identified ourselves, a number have been put forward by potential bidders. We will not be putting into the public domain details of such sites unless and until they are considered to be a serious prospect for the siting of an Accommodation Centre.''

Humfrey Malins: Further to that point of order, Mr. Illsley. I am grateful to the Minister, but will she answer these specific questions? When was that question tabled?

Eric Illsley: Technically, that is not a point of order for the Chair. Any further questions arising from the Minister's statement to the Committee must continue through debate. The information given by Ministers to Committees does not constitute a point of order. It is inappropriate for the hon. Gentleman to continue questions on that basis.

Humfrey Malins: Further to that point of order, Mr. Illsley. I perfectly understand your ruling, but is it appropriate for you to ask the Minister whether her comment last Thursday that she was considering which sites to submit planning applications for was wholly accurate, or whether a decision had already been taken? Will you direct her to respond, because the Committee may have been kept inadvertently in the dark and a decision already taken even though she said that it had not?

Eric Illsley: It is not within my power to direct the Minister to provide the information that the hon. Gentleman seeks, though I am sure that she has heard what he said and some of the issues may be cleared up later today or in future proceedings.

Clause 34 - Asylum-seeker: form of support

Richard Allan: I beg to move amendment No. 207, in page 17, line 37, leave out paragraph (a).
 My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) gives his apologies for not being present this morning. He is speaking at the Police Federation conference, but has assured me that he will join us this afternoon. 
 The amendment is designed to tease out the Government's intentions on cash only support. During proceedings on the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and ever since we have expressed our concerns about the support system for asylum seekers, which we believe fails in two respects: it has not been the most appropriate form of support for the asylum seekers themselves, and it has not been good value for money. 
 The clause, unamended, potentially replicates both those mistakes. It enables the Secretary the State to provide support for the living needs only of those people held within accommodation under the national asylum support system and effectively removes his ability to support individuals who have found accommodation elsewhere, usually with friends and family. That option should be retained because a significant number of individuals have found accommodation with host communities that they either knew before they came to the United Kingdom or have got to know since. The additional cash support is an important element in sustaining that. 
 We recognise the Government's concern that this is in some ways contrary to their dispersal strategy. They want to be able to say where asylum seekers should end up. Clearly, the cash only option allows asylum seekers to decide where they end up. They can choose to live with a particular family rather than in the accommodation to which they have been directed. We believe that the dispersal programme in general is still compatible with the cash only support system. According to the Refugee Council cash only support applications used to be almost entirely in the Greater London area but individuals are now claiming that support while living with host communities elsewhere. 
 Clearly, the system is not confining asylum seekers to the south-east, but it still has some way to go. It was introduced relatively recently and we do not know how it will develop over time. I certainly see individuals in Sheffield from the Somali community. Somali asylum seekers may well choose to live with the established Somali community there. That would be quite a sensible option for them and the cash only support system may allow that to happen. We need to recognise that individuals may choose to live with families and friends in established communities. Many of those established communities are in London and the south-east, but not all of them. The Government may wish to control where asylum seekers live in order to carry out their immigration functions. We believe that the reporting arrangements in the Bill and other legislation are sufficient to enable them to carry out 
 their function of tracking asylum seekers without having to dictate precisely where they live and allowing them some flexibility to make those decisions themselves. 
 We fear that if the Government proceed with the withdrawal of the cash only system immediately it may lead to more family separation. Without the additional cash contribution, families who may have recently established themselves in the United Kingdom or may still be going through some form of immigration procedure may be unable to look after another family member who wishes to stay with them. The new arrival will end up in National Asylum Support Service accommodation rather than with the family with whom they should be. In view of article 8 of the European convention on human rights and the right to family life, is it right for an individual who is in the UK and who has family members here to be disbarred financially from living with that family? 
 The cost question is significant. At present a single adult in the age band from 18 to 25 receives £29.89 per week in cash vouchers. That is clearly far less than providing accommodation in an accommodation centre, or indeed through the full package of benefits. We have to question the Government's motives in apparently wanting to close down a cheaper option whereby an individual provides for himself in his own community and receives what is effectively a small cash payment. Why introduce a policy that discourages that and instead directs people into a much more expensive option? Does that make sense? 
 We must also question the capacity of the support system if the 6,000-odd individuals who get voucher only support are directed back into the mainstream system. Do we have the ability to cope with that, given that there have been difficulties negotiating support packages for many asylum seekers throughout the country? The local authority in my constituency works as well as it can with the national support system but it is not a trivial task to find an extra 6,000 units of accommodation. 
 What happens if cash only support is withdrawn and significant numbers of individuals will not allow themselves to be diverted into the more expensive system but stay where they are without the cash support? Do the Government really intend that the host families and communities should pick up the entire tab? I accept that asylum seekers will have made the choice to stay there, but often the host communities are not at the top of the income tree and the people involved are already on fairly low incomes. Is it really intended to force individuals to make a choice between living with family and friends, being a burden on them, making them even poorer and perhaps creating additional social tensions as a result of that poverty, or living many miles away from those with whom they feel associated, simply for financial reasons? That is an invidious choice. 
 I hope that the Government will reconsider their view on the issue and keep open the additional option. The Bill as drafted does not state that it will be 
 withdrawn tomorrow, but there is a clear intention in the White Paper and the Bill that it will be withdrawn over time. We ask the Government to reconsider that intention, and to take note of our criticisms and the potential problems to which we have drawn attention that will result from the withdrawal of the additional flexibility.

Humfrey Malins: The possible withdrawal of the support only option is highly significant. Some respected non-governmental organisations, including the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the Refugee Council, the Law Society, Justice, the Refugee Legal Centre, the Refugee Children's Consortium, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and the Immigration Advisory Service, have drawn attention to it in briefings. There could not be a more comprehensive or authoritative list of NGOs, all of which are worried about the proposal.
 The clause allows the Secretary of State to make an order restricting the provision of essential living needs to those asylum seekers provided with accommodation by the Secretary of State, which seems to compel asylum seekers to accept dispersal. Taken as a whole, the clause would abolish the current option of applying for, and receiving, National Asylum Support Service subsistence support only, that is, without receiving NASS-provided accommodation on dispersal. The NGOs consider that unfair, unjust and counter-productive. In some cases, it could result in the undesirable separation of asylum seekers from friends or relatives able to accommodate them but not to support them financially, causing unnecessary distress to the asylum seekers concerned and increased accommodation costs to NASS. 
 In other cases, the provision could result in the denial of all welfare support to those asylum seekers who, for understandable reasons, prefer to stay with friends or relatives rather than being dispersed. For example, NASS does not make special provision for disabled asylum seekers, or those suffering severe illness. Citizens advice bureaux have reported being approached by individuals wanting to remain with friends or relatives rather than being dispersed. Nearly 40 per cent. of more than 65,000 asylum seekers and dependants currently supported by NASS have opted to receive subsistence support only. Accordingly, the number of individuals who would be adversely affected by the provision is substantial. 
 Justice is only one of the groups to have raised the issue. It said: 
''Where it is possible for applicants to remain in the community they should not be prevented from doing so''.
 I hope that the Government will be able to respond helpfully.

Angela Eagle: I understand hon. Members' concerns, but we believe that taking a power to end the provision of subsistence only support in all cases is wholly consistent with our approach of developing a more managed asylum policy and better ways of keeping contact with asylum seekers during the process. That will facilitate speedier consideration and lead to what all Committee members have said that they want—a more effective end-to-end process
 for those who apply for asylum. We have made it clear that if the pilots work and accommodation centres prove to be a great success, we may bring an end to the dispersal system. If that happens, we intend to offer support only in those accommodation centres. The Bill is drafted for not only the pilot but any potential result of the pilot, which may see the emergence of a new system. That is partially what the clause is about.
 Under current arrangements, asylum seekers may stay with friends or relatives and claim support to cover essential living needs. However, in such cases we have no control over where they live, which makes it difficult to maintain contact. Large numbers of those who take up cash only support remain in London and the south-east. As of December 2001, 17,000 of the 25,000-plus asylum seekers taking subsistence only support were living in London, which is 70 per cent. That frustrates the dispersal process, whatever the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) says.

Humfrey Malins: I understand the point about keeping track of asylum seekers, but will the Government consider tabling an amendment on Report to grant the facility provided that the Secretary of State knows the address and the person continues to reside there throughout the process?

Angela Eagle: We want the enabling power in clause 34 to create the potential to move away from cash only support, but it is not our immediate intention. We would not do it next week, and it would not make sense to do it until we had managed to regionalise NASS, if we are dealing with the current dispersal system, and we had in place more effective mechanisms for reporting, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam mentioned. Although I cannot tell the Committee when it will be, we foresee a time, if the reporting system is running properly and accommodation centres are working effectively, when we may wish to cut off the cash only option.

Richard Allan: Will the Minister clarify whether, under the current arrangements, when people want to stay in London or the south-east with family or friends—the 17,000 she mentioned—we simply withdraw cash only support and there is no power to force them to disperse? Do they simply live without the £29-odd coming into that family unit?

Angela Eagle: People are expected to co-operate with the asylum process. The only people who can apply to NASS for support—including the 17,000 who have chosen to frustrate the dispersal process and remain in London—are those who are destitute. If they decide that they do not want to apply for NASS support, or are not destitute and can afford to choose where to live, they move out of the system and are not offered NASS support.
 There may be a point in the future—when reporting is up and running, accommodation centres are more often used than now or we wish to make dispersal more effective—when the power allows us to decide not to have a cash only option. We are nowhere near that point, but the provision will allow us to move that way as the system evolves. In deciding whether and when to exercise the power, we must consider all relevant factors. Some will be administrative and some 
 will relate to how our systems have developed to facilitate more effective dispersal or use of accommodation centres. Of course, we also have to consider our obligations under the European convention on human rights. 
 We anticipate that any increase in accommodation costs as a result of withdrawing cash only support would be offset by savings delivered elsewhere by a more effective asylum system. We would not wish to move towards the cut-off of choice if we were not convinced that we could cope administratively with its effects. We cannot accept the amendment because it would take away our power to switch off cash only support, but I hope that I have given the Committee some idea of the Government's thinking on the use of this enabling power.

Karen Buck: I have listened carefully to the Minister, but I remain concerned about the provision. I understand that the intention is not to implement it immediately, but I am concerned about her description of people who take the support only option as having chosen to ''frustrate the dispersal process''. I should be grateful if she would provide evidence of that. I believe that the motivation of the overwhelming majority of people who take the support only option is to remain with family and friends in particular communities. Let us not attribute to them a negative motivation that is undermining policy.

Angela Eagle: I was talking about the effect of the choice and not saying that individuals were deliberately choosing to frustrate the process. Of the 40 per cent. of all asylum seekers who go for the cash only option, 70 per cent. remain in London. The dispersal system was introduced because of the enormous pressure on Greater London and the south-east, where asylum seekers were at that time deciding to stay. However, given those figures, the fact is that dispersal has been only partly effective in alleviating the pressure on the south-east and especially Greater London.

Karen Buck: I understand that point, but it is somewhat undermined by the fact that the proportion is falling. Clearly, if communities are created in places where they did not previously exist, and they take root, families will seek to unite and friends and communities will seek to gather around those new locations. That is precisely the point of dispersal. During the relatively short time for which that system has been operating, and despite the fact that it has been least effective in the first year or two because of teething problems, the proportion has fallen from 100 to 70 per cent., which is quite a hopeful sign.
 I believe that the overwhelming majority of people who take the support only option will continue to seek accommodation with family and friends and to unite families—husbands and wives and so on—and will do so without financial support. Withdrawal of the option will increase the stress on refugee communities and the destitution in inner-city communities, with various 
 consequences that we will find it extremely difficult to deal with. 
 The Minister advanced an argument about tracking individuals. What evidence is there of a disproportionate failure to comply with the asylum process among people who take the support only option? I understand that two communities in particular—Turkish and Sri Lankan—are most likely to take up that option, while members of the Chinese community tend to go to family and friends but not to take the cash support. Is there evidence—if there were, I would be influenced by it—that those two communities are disproportionately hard to track and fail to comply with decisions? 
 In this respect, as in so many others, we must continue to ensure that the decision-making process works quickly and efficiently. In the case of the Sri Lankan community, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says is one of the two communities that are most likely to take the support only option, non-compliance has been a problem and a barrier to effective decision making, although the situation is improving. In the nine months up to September 2001, over 1,400 Sri Lankan refusals—claims that failed on non-compliance grounds—were overturned on appeal. If we could focus on the communities receiving support only and ensure that we overcome the non-compliance problems, we would be out of the woods. People would not stay for a significant period on the support only basis and we would be able to move them through the system quickly. The efficiency of the system is the heart of the problem. 
 I believe that I made the case last week, but I remain concerned that the provision will not have the effect that the Government seek. It will increase poverty and destitution, particularly in London. I ask the Minister to consider whether greater flexibility in the Bill is possible.

Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend's position is not necessarily as incompatible with the Government's as she believes. This is an enabling power. I realise that the Committee must have a certain amount of trust that the Government will not use it tomorrow. We are taking a broad power that enables us at some time in the future, as the system evolves and if it seems appropriate, to cut off this option. We do not intend to do so immediately. We could focus on particular communities, as my hon. Friend suggested, before we even consider using the enabling power. Indeed, we would have to come back to Parliament to trigger it.
 My hon. Friend's points are not necessarily incompatible with the clause, but there would have to be some trust that sudden decisions would not be taken at Government level that would rule out some of her important suggestions—namely, whether we could improve contact with particular communities and whether reporting would deal with tracking the asylum claims of those on cash only support.

Richard Allan: I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) about the effect on communities already here. Is it the Minister's intention
 to prevent new people from taking the cash only option or to withdraw it from those already claiming it? That is an important distinction.

Angela Eagle: We do not want to introduce the enabling power overnight for everyone. If we decided to move towards it in the future, we would have to consider the practicalities. The first step would be to remove cash only support from all asylum seekers coming through at the time, and then to consider whether we wished to withdraw it gradually from those who have already taken advantage of it. The hon. Gentleman will know that we still have the remnants of the interim scheme, where decisions tend to be about practical administrative doability rather than policy neatness.

Parmjit Dhanda: Does the withdrawal of the support only option apply only to centres such as London or also to dispersal areas? I have had representations from a refugee organisation in Gloucestershire, which says that many people there receive support only.

Angela Eagle: We know from the figures I gave earlier that 70 per cent of those involved in choosing the cash only option—that is what we must call it now that the vouchers have gone—live in Greater London, and 30 per cent live elsewhere, although I cannot give my hon. Friend a rundown of precisely where. The clause allows us to remove all cash only options and require people either to be dispersed if they require assistance from NASS or to go into accommodation centres.
 At the beginning of this process, ahead of the pilot, we do not know how the accommodation centre proposals will develop. We must have the flexibility to change the old system to make it compatible with new developments. It is an enabling power that would in theory remove all other options, but as I said to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam, if we choose to use it, we will consider carefully how to implement it. It would be sensible to introduce it for all new asylum claims.

Parmjit Dhanda: Are we talking about removing cash only support for people already in dispersal areas such as Gloucestershire?

Angela Eagle: I have had a figure put in front of me, which I will read out to the Committee in case it is helpful. The number of people given cash only support in the south-west region in December last year was 350—I hope that Gloucester is in the south-west region. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend an idea of the numbers involved. The problem is far greater in central London, and we need to consider the effect of the provision on dispersal. Were we to exercise the power fully, it would end cash only support, but as I hope I have made clear, we do not intend to do that immediately. Were we to decide to trigger it, we would consider the practicalities of doing so.

Richard Allan: I am interested in what the Minister says about adopting a pragmatic approach. I hope that she is sincere in that, because I suspect that from a pragmatic perspective the withdrawal of the cash only option will prove counter-productive, for many of the reasons given by the hon. Member for Regent's Park
 and Kensington, North. I fear that the withdrawal of the cash only option would not disperse the 17,000 asylum seekers in London who are receiving it: it would merely leave them in London, but poorer. I hope that the Minister will consider seriously whether that would be the net result before proceeding with the provision.
 The other valid concern, which was raised by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), is the possibility that the 350 asylum seekers receiving cash only support in Gloucestershire might want to be supported by larger communities in London if cash only support were withdrawn. They may be able to live in Gloucestershire under the cash only option because they are staying with a Chinese or a Sri Lankan family, for example, but that might no longer be sustainable if the support were withdrawn. They might not want another accommodation option and might withdraw back to London. All those issues need to be looked at before proceeding down the route of the clause, which is fraught with difficulties. 
 The Minister referred to savings delivered elsewhere, which was a great phrase in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. There is always a perception that savings will materialise from one part of the system to enable us to put more into another part. The Government admitted in the proceedings of the previous Act that while the NASS accommodation options would be much more expensive than the benefits system, they would give an overall net saving because the time scales would be reduced: asylum seekers would use them for only a few months rather than for long periods. That has not happened.

Neil Gerrard: Is it not logical that there will not be savings, because the only way that the power could be introduced would be for NASS accommodation centres to offer accommodation to every asylum seeker? NASS would have to provide at least 17,000 more places, because otherwise we would cut off assistance for people who do not have any other means of support.

Richard Allan: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Thinking it through, if the assumption is that there would still be savings with the more expensive option of NASS accommodation for asylum seekers when they arrive in the country, because the time scale would be shorter, giving an individual a cash only option with a shorter time scale would be cheaper still. Overall savings are possible, although I am sceptical. Until I see savings materialise from the 1999 Act, I will not predict savings from this legislation. It would always be cheaper to go for the cash only option. It stands to reason, as we can see the figures.

Angela Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there would be far less reason to trigger the powers if we could reach the stage where reporting was working effectively, and if we could demonstrate that cash only asylum claims were dealt with as quickly as those in accommodation centres? We have yet to trial accommodation centres, and we may be able to make real savings and take speedy and effective decisions. I certainly hope so. It is wise to have the power to phase out other parts of previous systems in favour of more effective ones. I do not yet know
 whether there is potential in accommodation centres for achieving that. The pilot will show that. However, he must admit that having the power to respond appropriately is reasonable at this juncture.

Richard Allan: I appreciate the Minister's reasonable and rational clarification. She appears to be suggesting that there may be no need to withdraw the option if the reporting arrangements work and the claims can be processed reasonably quickly, and if we can therefore deal with the clustering of asylum seekers who are taking the option. That is helpful, if that is what she is saying. However, there is a fear that the Government would be cutting their nose off to spite their face if they withdrew this option, which may be cheaper and better for asylum seekers, in order to answer criticisms about dispersal and to try to speed up the process. We fear that that would be a blunt instrument, and would not work.
 However, I appreciate the tone of the Minister's response and her assurance that this is an enabling power and that the Government will carefully consider the circumstances. I do not wish to press the matter to a vote, although we will continue to examine carefully how the Government take the debate forward. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35 - Destitute asylum-seeker

Angela Eagle: I beg to move amendment No. 117, in page 18, line 9, at end insert:
'( ) In subsection (1) for the definition of ''asylum-seeker'' substitute— 
 '' ''asylum-seeker'' means a person— 
 (a) who is at least 18 years old, 
 (b) who has made a claim for asylum at a place designated by the Secretary of State, 
 (c) whose claim has been recorded by the Secretary of State, and 
 (d) whose claim has not been determined;'' '.

Eric Illsley: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 118 and 119.

Angela Eagle: I must first point out an unfortunate and inaccurate sentence in the explanatory note to clause 35, which states:
''It therefore removes the requirement to provide cash-only support to asylum-seekers.''
 The clause does not do that. I do not know how the sentence got in there. It is a gremlin, and should be removed. It has confused those who have been reading the explanatory notes to understand the legalese in the Bill. I apologise, and have drawn the matter to the attention of Opposition spokesmen. 
 The amendments bring the provisions in clause 35, and thus the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, in line with the wording of clause 16. Amendment 117 applies the new definition of asylum seeker in clause 16(1) to section 94 of the 1999 Act. Amendment No. 118 amends the wording of section 94(3A) of the 1999 
 Act, which clause 35 inserts. The amendment mirrors the provision in clause 16(2), which states: 
''A person shall continue to be treated as an asylum-seeker . . . while—
(a) his household includes a dependant child who is under 18, and
(b) he does not have leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.''
 The introductory Bill omitted section 94(5) from the 1999 Act, as it was no longer needed. Amendment No. 118 means that sections 94(5) and (6) are not needed. Amendment No. 118 covers the same ground that was covered in those provisions, so amendment No. 119 omits section 94(5) and (6) from the 1999 Act. The amendments are technical and should present the Committee with no difficulty. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendment made: No. 118, in page 18, line 23, leave out from 'asylum-seeker' to end of line 25 and insert 
'despite paragraph (d) of the definition of ''asylum-seeker'' in subsection (1) while— 
 (a) his household includes a dependant child who is under 18, and 
 (b) he does not have leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.''.'.—[Angela Eagle.]

Karen Buck: I beg to move amendment No. 152, in page 18, line 25, at end insert—
'(3B) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements with local housing authorities, social services authorities, health and education authorities and other relevant agencies to promote the resettlement of those recognised as refugees under the Refugee Convention 1951, and those granted exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom. 
 (3C) For the purposes of subsection (3B), resettlement may include assistance in securing accommodation, welfare benefits, health, community care and education services.'.
 I shall be brief, because the amendment is designed only to ask the Minister for clarification about the arrangements that she has in mind for the permanent resettlement of asylum seekers who go through the accommodation centre process and are given leave to remain, with their place of residence being at the accommodation centre. As we know, successive asylum Acts—including, in different ways, both the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 and the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999—left it unclear which authority carries the responsibility for those who receive leave to remain, particularly concerning duties under the Housing Acts. That complication should be cleared up as soon as possible, so will she explain her thinking on the permanent resettlement arrangements?

Angela Eagle: I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend. We are working with other Departments, local government and non-governmental organisations to see how we can develop a more effective integration process. That is particularly important for those who leave accommodation centres and do not then live in the area in which they were accommodated. Part of the trial will help us to create circumstances that smooth the transition, and I would be the first to admit that the transition from asylum seeker to refugee status and
 from one system to the other is not perfect, as she will know from her casework.
 My noble Friend Lord Rooker chairs the national refugee integration forum, which includes other Departments, local authorities and NGO representatives. It meets quarterly and has nine specialist sub-groups, which examine subjects such as health and education and meet eight times a year. We are beginning to create information, joint working and consideration of how we can best facilitate integration. The work is at a reasonably early stage, but it encompasses the spirit of the amendment, and I would prefer not to have the statutory obligation. 
 I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are already thinking along the lines of the spirit of the amendment. The work is at an early stage, and we can keep her informed of how it goes as the trials progress, but we have already identified that it is crucial that we develop a more effective transition from asylum seeker to refugee status for those who are successful in their claims.

Karen Buck: I thank the Minister for her reply and am happy with the tone and the expressed commitment to tackle what has been a problem. As we discussed when debating the citizenship arrangements, a process that should be positive for the refugees and their communities is often undermined by the fact that the arrangements are chaotic. People are sometimes left with no means of subsistence or any documents to prove their identity. I know that she is familiar with those and other problems.
 I want to press the Minister on housing duty, because it is a particularly serious problem. Glancing at the list of areas in which planning permission may be sought for accommodation centres, most do not have low housing demand and we cannot immediately assume that people would be able to come out of an accommodation centre and be rehoused by the relevant housing authority in surplus accommodation. The housing pinch is most acute in London, and as housing is probably the single most important factor that impedes effective integration of refugees and asylum seekers, I would hate to see that pinch replicated. We will need to see how the people go through accommodation centres and become members of communities in which the Government are trying to make dispersal in the broader sense work. How will the specific statutory housing duty be applied?

Angela Eagle: I cannot tell my hon. Friend that ahead of the work on facilitating transition for those granted refugee status from accommodation centres—which do not yet exist—to the communities where they may wish to live. As she knows, once granted that status, refugees leave the dispersal system and can choose to live anywhere in the country. A different process will apply for accommodation centres than for dispersal in cluster areas. We are considering with other Departments and local authorities how best and most appropriately to facilitate that process. We are mindful of the issues, of which housing is one of the most important. I cannot give her a detailed breakdown of our intended procedure, but I am happy to keep her informed.

Karen Buck: I wanted to test the Government's opinion. I appreciate that the problem has been recognised and is being considered. If housing duty is not grappled with, we could end up exacerbating homelessness, particularly across London and the south-east. I look forward to receiving further information from the Minister and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment made: No. 119, in page 18, line 26, leave out 'subsection (5)' and insert 'subsections (5) and (6)'.—[Angela Eagle.]

Richard Allan: I beg to move amendment No. 211, in page 18, line 36, at end insert—
''(4A) For the purposes of subsections (3) and (4) above a person does not have or cannot obtain adequate accommodation if he cannot pay the rent and similar charges for it or the Council Tax (if any) payable by the person or his dependant.''.

Eric Illsley: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 13—Support for council tax—
''(1) Schedule 8 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 shall be amended by the insertion after paragraph 3 of the following— 
 '(3A) The regulations shall make provision that the needs of a person to be taken into account by the Secretary of State when deciding— 
 (a) if a person is destitute, and 
 (b) if support is required to be provided, 
 (c) the amount of support to be provided shall include the rent and similar charges and the Council Tax if any payable by the person or his dependant.'. 
 (2) Schedule 9 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 shall be amended by the insertion after paragraph 7 of the following— 
 '(7A) The regulations shall make provision that the needs of a person to be taken into account by the local authority when deciding 
 (a) if a person is destitute, and 
 (b) if support is required to be provided, 
 (c) the amount of support to be provided shall include the rent and similar charges and the Council Tax if any payable by the person or his dependant.'. 
 (3) The Secretary of State shall make provision by regulations made under Schedules 8 and 9 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 in respect of a qualifying person to be paid whether directly or indirectly for the Council Tax and any court or bailiff's costs in respect of the qualifying period. 
 (4) In this section— 
 (a) 'A qualifying person' is a person 
 (i) who or whose dependant was liable to pay Council Tax in respect of a time when he was or ought to have been in receipt of support under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, 
 (ii) whose needs to be met by the funder (subject to the resources of the person), as calculated by the funder did not include Council Tax, and 
 (iii) where that person has not subsequently received Council Tax benefit in respect of that period. 
 (b) 'The qualifying period' is the period or periods in relation to which the person was a qualifying person, 
 (c) 'funder' is the Secretary of State in cases where the Secretary of State was the person supplying the support under section 95(1) and the relevant local authority when the support was supplied under section 95(13), and 
 (d) 'section 95' means section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. 
 (5) This section shall come into force 7 days after the passing of this Act.''.

Richard Allan: We seek clarification on council tax. Our understanding is that an individual on income support receives housing benefit through the housing benefit system and council tax benefit through the council tax benefit system, while an asylum seeker under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 receives a living allowance at around 70 per cent of income support, has his rent paid directly and is exempt from council tax from 1 April 2000 if the accommodation was arranged for him under the provisions of section 95, which would classify him as class F under the exempt classes.
 That provision should cover the situation, but we have had representations, particularly from Wandsworth and Merton law centre—although I understand that the problem is not confined to those boroughs—that some individuals are in accommodation found in ways other than under section 95: either under different provisions, or they found the accommodation themselves or there is some other reason why they are not under class F for exemptions. 
 Wandsworth and Merton law centre has come across a significant number of asylum seekers who are receiving support but who have been chased by bailiffs for recovery of council tax. There is a differential provision: some local authorities exercise a discretionary exemption; others have not applied it. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has reported this as a widespread problem in London. 
 We would be grateful for the Minister's clarification on asylum seekers' liability for council tax. It is clear that these individuals are living below income support level. It is not a question of gaining a status above those on income support. There should be sensible arrangements for resolving the council tax issue. It seems silly that local authorities are responsible for supporting individuals yet are effectively paying to chase them to recover money that they cannot pay. 
 Citizens advice bureaux and law centres want clarification, as they are seeing people who have breached the law and are being pursued by bailiffs because they have not paid their council tax. It would help those organisations if the position was clarified in the Bill and the local authorities had clearer directions, so that the council tax regime could be applied in a universal and sensible fashion to everyone receiving support under the asylum support system.

Angela Eagle: I am slightly puzzled by what the hon. Gentleman said, as he did not make it clear what category of asylum seeker he was talking about. I can tell him the formal position. It is possible that a few have fallen through the net but I will need more information about their precise circumstances before I can reply to him.
 I cannot support amendment No. 211. Placing a statutory requirement in the Bill is unnecessary because it is adequately covered in regulations and caseworking instructions. The amendment would mean that asylum seekers who could afford their rent and food and other essential items but could not afford their council tax or similar charges would be considered destitute. The current position is that when 
 asylum seekers apply for asylum support and say that they wish to remain in their current accommodation, the Secretary of State, when considering whether they are destitute, will determine whether they can afford the costs in respect of their current accommodation and meet their other reasonable living expenses. That is covered by regulation 8 of the Asylum Support Regulations 2000, which does not apply to those applying from emergency accommodation provided under section 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. I can confirm that the costs of their existing accommodation can include council tax and other charges associated with rent such as service charges and utilities. That is set out in caseworking instructions. 
 Those who can meet their rent, food and other essential items but cannot pay their council tax could therefore be considered destitute. When it has been determined that a person cannot afford the costs of their accommodation he or she is invited to apply for National Asylum Support Service accommodation. The person's circumstances will be taken into account but the expectation is that accommodation will normally be provided in a dispersal area on a no-choice basis. The exception is when the case is a disbenefited family whose minor dependant children have attended a particular school for at least 12 months. In that case, in order to avoid disrupting the child's education we have made special arrangements with local authorities to pay the rent, utilities and council tax. In neither of those circumstances should bailiffs be chasing after individual asylum seekers. 
 I am also unable to support new clause 13. Asylum seekers provided with accommodation under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 are not liable for council tax, as the owners of the properties are liable. The National Asylum Support Service has contracts with property owners that take that fact into account. Thus, it is the property owner who pays the council tax when NASS has provided accommodation support, and certainly not the individual. 
 In addition, as a general rule NASS does not provide rent directly to the applicant. We have contracts with accommodation providers whom we pay directly, which is much easier and simpler. We can also make certain that the basic cost of the accommodation—the roof over someone's head—is paid in a timely fashion. 
 Those who are supported by local authorities under the interim provisions remain liable for council tax. Local authorities can provide the cost of an asylum seeker's council tax and claim it back from NASS as part of the usual grant funding arrangements. NASS has the discretion to grant fund such claims under section 110 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Therefore, the issues that the hon. Gentleman describes should not happen, unless there are circumstances that I have not covered, and I am unaware of any.

Richard Allan: I suspect that it applies in the latter case, under the interim arrangements when the local authority has chosen not to fund the council tax, but there is a legal liability.

Angela Eagle: Local authorities can claim it back: they do not have to fund the council tax. They should get their act together, and have the council tax liabilities for those in the interim scheme paid back to them. Asylum seekers should not be chased by bailiffs for council tax liabilities.

Richard Allan: I am grateful to the Minister for her clear statement on the record of the Government's position in respect of council tax for asylum seekers. That is what we were seeking to tease out. I am sure that those who read the record of our debates and who deal with individuals in citizens advice bureaux or law centres will be in touch with us and/or the Minister if they feel that there are additional cases that we have not covered. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendments made: No. 120, in page 19, line 17, leave out 'or assets which are' and insert 'which is'. 
 No. 121, in page 19, line 19, at end insert— 
'( ) enable or require the Secretary of State in deciding whether a person is destitute to have regard to assets of a prescribed kind which he or a dependant of his has or might reasonably be expected to have;'.
 No. 122, in page 19, line 20, at end insert— 
'(5A) The following shall be substituted for section 96(1)(b) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c.33) (ways of providing support)— 
 ''(b) by providing the supported person and his dependants (if any) with food and other essential items;''. 
 (5B) In section 97 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c.33) (support: supplemental)— 
 (a) in subsection (4) for ''essential living needs'' there shall be substituted ''food and other essential items'', 
 (b) in subsection (5) for ''essential living needs'' there shall be substituted ''food and other essential items'', and 
 (c) in subsection (6) for ''living needs'' there shall be substituted ''items''.'.—[Angela Eagle.]

Angela Eagle: I beg to move amendment No. 248, in page 19, line 34, at end insert—
'( ) The following shall be substituted for section 12(2B) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (c.49) (general social welfare services of local authorities—exclusion of destitute asylum seeker: interpretation)— 
 ''(2B) Section 95(3) to (8) of that Act shall apply for the purposes of subsection (2A) of this section; and for that purpose a reference to the Secretary of State in section 95(5) or (6) shall be treated as a reference to a local authority.''. 
 ( ) The following shall be substituted for section 13A(5) of that Act (provision of residential accommodation with nursing—exclusion of destitute asylum seeker: interpretation)— 
 ''(5) Section 95(3) to (8) of that Act shall apply for the purposes of subsection (4) of this section; and for that purpose a reference to the Secretary of State in section 95(5) or (6) shall be treated as a reference to a local authority.''. 
 ( ) The following shall be substituted for section 13B(4) of that Act (Provision of care and after-care—exclusion of destitute asylum seeker: interpretation)— 
 ''(4) Section 95(3) to (8) of that Act shall apply for the purposes of subsection (3) of this section; and for that purpose a reference to the Secretary of State in section 95(5) or (6) shall be treated as a reference to a local authority.''.'.

Eric Illsley: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 123 and 249.

Angela Eagle: Again, these minor technical amendments are consequential on changes that the Bill makes to section 95(3) to (8) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Amendments Nos. 248 and 249 make comparable changes to the Scottish legislation that is equivalent to the National Assistance Act 1948, the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 and the National Health Service Act 1977. Amendment No. 123 does the equivalent for Northern Ireland legislation. Taken together, the amendments will ensure that the current position is maintained. Given their highly technical nature, I hope that the Committee will easily accept them.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 123, in page 19, line 41, at end insert— 
'( ) The following shall be substituted for Article 7(3A) of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (S.I. 1972/1265 (N.I. 14)) (prevention of illness, care and after-care: exclusion of asylum-seeker: interpretation)— 
 ''(3A) Section 95(3) to (8) of that Act shall apply for the purpose of paragraph (3); and for that purpose a reference to the Secretary of State in section 95(5) or (6) shall be treated as a reference to the Department.'' 
 ( ) The following shall be substituted for Article 15(7) of that Order (general social welfare: exclusion of destitute asylum-seeker: interpretation)— 
 ''(7) Section 95(3) to (8) of that Act shall apply for the purpose of paragraph (6); and for that purpose a reference to the Secretary of State in section 95(5) or (6) shall be treated as a reference to the Department.''.'.
 No. 249, in page 19, line 41, at end insert— 
'( ) The following shall be substituted for section 7(4) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 (c.36) (functions of local authorities—exclusion of destitute asylum seeker: interpretation)— 
 ''(4) Section 95(3) to (8) of that Act shall apply for the purposes of subsection (3) of this section; and for that purpose a reference to the Secretary of State in section 95(5) or (6) shall be treated as a reference to a local authority.''. 
 ( ) The following shall be substituted for section 8(5) of that Act (provision of after-care services—exclusion of destitute asylum seeker: interpretation)— 
 ''(5) Section 95(3) to (8) of that Act shall apply for the purposes of subsection (4) of this section; and for that purpose a reference to the Secretary of State in section 95(5) or (6) shall be treated as a reference to a local authority''.'.—[Angela Eagle.]
 Clause 35, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36 - Young asylum-seeker

Richard Allan: I beg to move amendment No. 260, in page 20, line 1, at end add—
'(2) The financial support made available as a result of subsection (1) shall be paid in advance and support for children over 16 shall be set at the same level as those for children under 16'.
 We have debated the support for young asylum seekers many times in discussing special grant reports for local authorities, which is how the system has worked to date, and there are general concerns about that. The amendment would make equivalent the payment levels for those who are under 16 and those who are 16 and 17. We have often discussed the levels 
 at which the grants were set, and the rate was significantly higher for those under 16, who have cost the local authority up to £400 a week. The local authority still has responsibility for those individuals. There has been a lower rate for those aged 16 and 17, although they are still assessed as children. 
 There is a good reason for funding 16 and 17-year-olds at a rate equivalent to that for those under 16: at the current rate, it is difficult for local authorities to provide individuals in the older age group with the entire package. We understand that the new system will involve direct payment. Quite a significant number of individuals enter the system at that age. 
 I know that questions have been raised about the validity of dates of birth and so on, but it seems reasonable to suggest that unaccompanied individuals of that age will seek asylum. They may be able to travel more independently, and the problems from which asylum claims result often affect young men in that age group. In military and conflict situations, young men are frequently the target. Those individuals will be most caught up in such a situation, whether a Government agency is removing them from communities or anyone else is seeking to sign them up to a military force. There is a pattern of people of that age seeking asylum, and local authorities have a particular duty and responsibility to care for them, so the funding level should be set appropriately for the individuals affected. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response on the logic of separating out the payments and the levels to be set under the new system of direct payment as opposed to the special grant support system of the past.

Rosie Winterton: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but the amendments are unnecessary and perhaps unhelpful. The aim of the clause is to increase the flexibility with which the Home Office can reimburse local authorities, but the amendments would restrict it. The amendment would make payments in advance of need, yet we all accept that this sector has a volatile and demand-led population that is difficult to forecast. The amendment would make local authorities produce estimates of the number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children to be supported in the future and the likely costs incurred. As well as the inherent difficulties, it could result in large balances being held in local authority accounts that could not be used elsewhere, which would be an improper use of Government funds.
 Following on from previous representations—I know that Opposition Members welcome this—the Government have already moved to making quarterly payments in arrears to local authorities to support adults and families, and we intend to extend the system to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. That will do a great deal to remedy the problems suffered by local authorities without the need for complex advance payment systems. 
 The second part of the amendment would fix grant levels for all unaccompanied asylum-seeking children 
 to the same amount without taking into account the level of support required. Costs to local authorities are dependent on the actual support that they provide to children, assessed on a one-to-one rather than a crude age basis. For the first time last year, the grant regime recognised that by continuing the higher rate of support for older children whose initial assessment had shown that they required support under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. The higher rate for children under that section rather than on an age basis reflects the care costs required to meet children's needs as assessed under strict guidance issued by the Department of Health, the Home Office and the Department for Education and Skills. 
 It would be wrong, and possibly damaging to children, to pre-empt the assessment by prescribing levels of care based on age. That would not ensure that they received appropriate care and would not achieve best value for money. We cannot justify paying the higher rate to all, regardless of need and without assuring value for money. 
 I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that a thorough review of the grant mechanism is planned, and that the overwhelming request from local authorities has been for more flexibility rather than prescription. I hope that, with those assurances, he will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.

Richard Allan: I am grateful to the Minister for her response and for the assurance about the quarterly payment system, which is welcomed by local authorities. She said that is was difficult to have systems for payment in advance. Could that be explored? There are other situations in which that occurs, such as when teachers go on to higher rates of pay. I have sat on local authority committees dealing with special grants, and I saw how the anticipated figure is calculated, paid in advance and then settled in the end. It may be more difficult to run that for asylum-seeking children, but I suspect that London boroughs have a steady rate of such children and having the cash up front would make quite a difference to their social services budgets. I suspect that the balancing up would not be too complex. In view of the difficulties for local authorities' social services budgets, I hope that the general principle is established that the payments should be made as soon as possible. There has been progress from an annual payment in arrears to a quarterly payment in arrears, and I look forward to continued progress. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Humfrey Malins: I want to reiterate that the quarterly payment in arrears is an improvement. I recall a good debate on unaccompanied asylum-seeking minors a few weeks ago when the figure of 6,500 was discussed. That is an awful lot of young people. I also remember the interesting formula for the payments in the regulations, which, I remarked at the time, required a mathematical genius to assess. I have received a letter from the leader of Kent county council describing some of the problems it has in dealing
 with young asylum seekers. I hope that the Minister has taken those problems on board. We had a good debate on the special grant, and we welcome the provisions that came from it. We have no difficulties with the Government's proposals. Indeed, we welcome them.
 I have referred in the past to assessing the age of a young asylum seeker. I moved an amendment to the effect that the Secretary of State should not inquire into a person's age until he is satisfied that that young person has had access to legal advice and assistance. It is a suitable point to raise again on clause stand part. I do not think that the Minister will undertake to do that, but I would be satisfied if she would accept the general thrust of my argument, which is that NGOs are sometimes concerned about the questioning of young people of about that age. It is a sensitive area and needs particularly delicate handling. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37 - Failed asylum-seeker

Richard Allan: I beg to move amendment No. 215, in page 20, line 7, after 'the', insert 'essential living needs and'.

Eric Illsley: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 261, in page 20, line 9, at end insert
'Or, 
 (c) if his claim for asylum was accepted.'.

Richard Allan: In principle we welcome the change provided in the clause, as this is an area of particular concern. When we considered the 1999 Act, we recognised that there could be categories of individuals who had to remain in the UK after the rejection of an asylum claim, either because they could not travel home at that stage or because they were seeking to explore various judicial avenues. There was considerable debate about whether the right to access the due legal process would be infringed if an individual were given that right but no means of support to allow him or her to exercise it. We welcome the provision of accommodation, but amendment No. 215 would extend that to provide accommodation and essential living needs—a package that would enable individuals to remain and exercise their rights or be supported until they could leave the UK. I would be interested to hear how the Government expect the accommodation package to be provided. Is their view that essential living needs are implicit in the provision or is it an accommodation only package?

Humfrey Malins: I rise merely to say that my name is on the amendment and that I, too, would be interested to hear the Minister's response. There is an argument for widening the clause to cover essential living needs as well as accommodation, in order to enable the person concerned to be adequately maintained during a difficult period.

Rosie Winterton: As hon. Members have said, the clause extends the scope of section 4 of the 1999 Act to allow the provision of accommodation to people whose asylum claims have been rejected and to their dependants, whether such people were originally given temporary admission to the UK or made a claim for asylum while they had a form of leave to remain. However, when an asylum claim has been determined and rejected, the main applicant is no longer eligible for support under the asylum support arrangements of the 1999 Act unless he or she is accompanied by dependants under the age of 18. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam said, in some cases applicants may be unable to return immediately to their country of origin, because they may be suffering from illness or there is no safe route by which they can return, and in order to ensure that such people are not left destitute, basic support may be provided under section 4 of the 1999 Act. Section 4 support may also be provided in certain circumstances to former asylum seekers who have applied for judicial review of the asylum decision. However, the existing provision allows accommodation to be provided only to those who have been temporarily admitted to the UK or released from detention, and it does not cover all asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected.

Humfrey Malins: Is a person whose asylum application has been rejected all the way down the line but who nevertheless seeks a judicial review classified as no longer an asylum seeker?

Rosie Winterton: Such a person would be eligible for section 4 support but would be considered no longer eligible as an asylum seeker for overall NASS support. He or she would be eligible for section 4 support if the asylum decision were being judicially reviewed and that review or the case were judged as having some merit.
 The existing provisions allow accommodation to be provided only to those who have been temporarily admitted to the UK or released from detention, and do not cover all asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected. The clause is intended to close that gap and allow the provision of support to all asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected, if the Secretary of State decides to provide accommodation in certain cases. However, we stress that support under section 4 is a last resort. It is not intended to replicate the provision of support under the asylum support scheme, but to meet the basic living needs—food and shelter—of unsuccessful asylum seekers who cannot immediately leave the country. The current arrangements achieve that for those eligible to benefit from it, and it is unnecessary to amend section 4 of the 1999 Act further in the way proposed. 
 We understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam. However, the Government consider amendment No. 261 to be unnecessary, as we are already working with interested parties through the national refugee integration forum to promote the resettlement and integration of successful asylum seekers into the community. The Home Office is also working with the Department for Work and Pensions to improve the arrangements for enabling successful asylum seekers to 
 transfer from central Government support to mainstream benefits, or to enter the labour market. The Home Office is also considering further written guidance on how successful asylum applicants can access mainstream services. I hope that I have reassured hon. Gentlemen, and that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Richard Allan: I am grateful for the Minister's polite and comprehensive response. It was sufficiently comprehensive to include reference to amendment No. 261, which I failed to discuss, as too many of my amendments are numbered in the 200s and I got confused. The Minister touched on the point that we were trying to raise about the transitional arrangements, which the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North mentioned earlier. Those arrangements continue to concern us, and I welcome the Minister's comment that they are a priority for successful claimants.
 The Government are clearly giving serious consideration to resettlement. The support provided at that point is key to whether an individual integrates successfully. We discussed the citizenship test earlier. It is critical to provide support at the crucial point when individuals know that they will spend a significant part of the rest of their lives, if not the rest of their entire life, in the United Kingdom. I am grateful to the Minister for being a mind reader and responding on that point. 
 The clause was clarified as we hoped, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 - Conditions of support

Richard Allan: I beg to move amendment No. 216, in page 20, leave out lines 26 to 36.
 The amendment would remove specific reference to the reporting arrangements and the conditions imposed on the individual receiving support. The intention is to test the Government's thinking on the restrictions under the Immigration Act 1971 that can be imposed on individuals when they are admitted temporarily, or on their release from detention on arrival, and to establish which thresholds the Government are considering. The reporting arrangements can include an individual's place of residence, their employment and their requirement to report. 
 Some breaches of those requirements will be serious, some will merit the consequential loss of support and others may be minor and technical. The amendment seeks to establish the Government's approach and the extent to which the regime will be absolute or reasonable; we hope that it will be the latter. Clearly, there will be technical breaches. For example, an individual may fail to report because of illness or for another good reason that may be explained later. We want to test the proposition that 
 support will not be withdrawn unreasonably because of minor and technical breaches of conditions. Similarly, there will be a range of cases in which individuals will be subject to restrictions pending deportation. Individuals who are doing all they can to resist deportation may not report, and some may have complied but may have technically breached the restrictions. 
 We want to establish the link between support and restrictions in order to determine whether the Government are trying to introduce a reasonable regime that responds properly to individuals' circumstances, or are trying to withdraw support on technical grounds when withdrawal is not merited.

Humfrey Malins: If an asylum seeker is to lose support because of a breach of a condition of residence, employment or reporting, I want the Minister's assurance that the criteria will be applied sensibly. I can draw a parallel with the court system. People often breach their bail conditions in a minor way and the court has the discretion to deal with the matter leniently. A serious breach would result in a much more difficult situation for the person who had broken the bail conditions. Can the Minister assure me that the Government will adopt a sensible approach, and that minor breaches will not be punished in the way envisaged?

Angela Eagle: I hope that I can give the hon. Gentlemen the assurances that they seek. It is not intended that the reporting conditions will be onerous or that they will be put into effect in an unreasonable manner. However, we want a better, more tightly managed process, and the clause provides the levers that we need for a rights and responsibilities reporting regime. Asylum seekers will be told from the beginning what is expected of them. They will be fully informed at the induction centres about the process, their part in it and their responsibilities.
 Asylum seekers who report as instructed will have nothing to fear from our proposal to link the provision of support to compliance with the requirement to report, and their travel costs will be paid if they have to travel to a particular place in order to do so. If they fail to report as directed without reasonable cause, their support may be terminated. That is when the reasonableness test and the proportionate nature of the response applies. If someone has not reported for good reason—for example, if they or someone in their family has been ill—it would be ludicrous to visit extreme consequences upon them. That is not what the clause provides, as reasonableness issues are taken into account. 
 A more managed system, with regular reporting, will enable us to be in regular touch with those who seek asylum. The clause will clearly be more relevant to those who are not in accommodation centres. We want to keep asylum seekers informed, and we will expect from them a level of engagement with the process that has not been required to date.

Richard Allan: The Minister encouragingly says that a reasonableness test will be applied when an individual has been told that their support will be withdraw because they have breached the conditions. Who will
 apply the reasonableness test? In real-life circumstances, an asylum seeker who has breached a condition and is told that their support will be withdrawn is likely to visit a legal adviser, such as the Refugee Legal Centre. If they want to challenge the decision, to whom will they be able to go?

Angela Eagle: After the induction at the beginning of the process, asylum seekers will be in no doubt about how the system works and what is expected of them. It will be important to make those points clear at the beginning to everyone who goes through the process. If they behave in a certain way or do not co-operate in a minor way, that will be considered by people in the reporting centre, who will decide whether there should be any consequences. They will be either immigration or casework officers.
 If individuals believe that an incident has been taken out of proportion, they will be able to query that, which will ensure that they are given a fair hearing. They will need to contact the reporting centre, and NASS will make any final decision to end the support, which is what happens now. I imagine that support will be ended only in the most drastic circumstances when people are completely failing to comply with conditions of support. We hope that the clause will create a more married system, so that it will be a requirement on individuals and in their interests to keep in regular touch with NASS. 
 Individuals will have a right of appeal to the asylum support adjudicator if they disagree with a final decision. I hope that the system will work supportively, as we intend the contact to support the asylum seeker as well as the system itself. It will enable face-to-face contact, an update on what is happening with the claim and a range of activities to take place as a matter of course, which is not the case at the moment.

Richard Allan: That is helpful clarification, particularly on the question of challenges. I hope that they will not be needed, but an individual may want to challenge a decision because they feel that the reporting officer had a problem with them as an individual. There must always be a route for challenge when an individual's livelihood is seriously threatened. A total withdrawal of support would be significant to the individual, so I am pleased that there is some route to the asylum support adjudicator for a challenge.

Angela Eagle: I should also point out that support would be removed only if a serious breach had occurred and evidence showed that individuals were not complying with what was expected of them in an asylum claim. We must get the problem in perspective. The hon. Gentleman is using the most drastic example, and it is not appropriate for Government money to be spent processing an asylum claim if the individual is not remotely interested in making progress with it.

Richard Allan: Again, that is a helpful clarification from the Minister, which I accept entirely. We wanted clarification of the regime, and she has helpfully described for the record what sounds like a sensible system.
 I should like to raise a couple of other issues on this clause separately from the amendment, which I shall not press. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Richard Allan: Another important question concerns the extent to which there will be any link between a breach of the conditions that requires some loss of support and the asylum claim. This is a fundamental question that will be of interest to individuals. The White Paper stated clearly that breaches of conditions for receiving support may affect the credibility of an asylum seeker. I can foresee circumstances in which that would be appropriate if the individual behaved in a way that undermined their credibility, and it would be fair and appropriate for that to be reported to those who decide the asylum claim.
 However, I can foresee other circumstances in which the interpretation of excusable technical breaches, which NASS has decided are not a serious problem, is not appropriately communicated to the asylum decision makers. They may see those technical breaches described on a piece of paper, believe that an applicant's credibility has been undermined, and take an adverse decision. That would clearly have a significant impact on individual asylum seekers. 
 How does the Minister envisage these arrangements tying in with asylum decision-making arrangements? Can she give an assurance that individuals who have not seriously breached their conditions will not have their credibility inappropriately undermined?

Angela Eagle: We had a run around this course earlier in our proceedings, and I gave two examples, one of which involved the breaking of a cup, which I discussed with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. Clearly, that incident would not find its way on to the desk of a decision maker and affect the credibility of a claim. However, if someone fleeing persecution were found to be working illegally while the claim was under consideration, and it emerged that the contract for that work had been organised before the individual entered the country, that might well have a significant effect on the credibility of the claim. Clearly, credibility is more likely to be affected if breaches are more serious. I would not expect technical breaches, such as illness, to have any effect.
 With those clarifications, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand the provisions that we want to introduce on the reporting of conditions in clause 38. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39 - Choice of form of support

Richard Allan: I beg to move amendment No. 217, in page 20, line 41, after 'subsection', insert
'and refused without reasonable excuse'.
 During debates on the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, we discussed how the Secretary of State's support system takes the individual circumstances of asylum seekers into account. Concerns remain about whether the individual can advance reasonable arguments to show why one support arrangement is more suitable than another. 
 The clause provides only one option. The Secretary of State will make an offer and any individual who refuses it will have no recourse to an alternative—or, rather, the Secretary of State has no duty to take account of that. The amendment is designed to allow an individual to provide reasonable grounds for failing to accept proposed accommodation. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State would have a duty to make a second offer. 
 We are worried about the family and social circumstances of individuals who have suffered persecution in their home country. They might have specific social requirements that would militate against dispersal. If an individual has been tortured or suffered persecution, those requirements should be advanced at an early stage of the process of applying for support, and the decision takers should take it into account. Some individuals might slip through the net and be offered support that is inappropriate in view of their particular social needs. At that stage, will they be able to advance reasonable grounds for not accepting a decision?

Angela Eagle: Can the hon. Gentleman explain what exactly he means by ''their particular social needs''?

Richard Allan: I am referring to individuals who have suffered persecution, making isolation a particular hardship for them. If evidence of torture is clear—the Medical Foundation mentioned this previously—such individuals may have a stronger requirement to be housed in a particular community than someone who has not suffered in that way. We discussed the fact that asylum seekers may have a stronger argument against being dispersed to inappropriate surroundings if they can provide clear evidence that they suffered persecution and degrading treatment at home. I hope that they can put that argument under the clause that deals with their choice of housing.
 Amendment No. 218 would provide that the Secretary of State must, rather than may, have regard to individual circumstances.

Eric Illsley: Order. Only amendment No. 217 can be discussed.

Richard Allan: You are right, Mr. Illsley. Amendment No. 218 is in the next group. I will discuss ''may'' and ''must'' later. An individual should be able to present particular circumstances and be offered different options for support under the asylum support system.

Angela Eagle: I look forward to our debate about ''may'' or ''must''.
 The hon. Gentleman believes that all those seeking asylum should have a choice between dispersal and an accommodation centre, or should be able to second-
 guess the Secretary of State's decision about where they will be supported. We must ensure flexibility so that we can make the best use of the different methods of support, while they run in tandem. If accommodation centres succeed and become the norm, there may be no alternative for individuals to choose. We are currently running two systems in parallel, as we are trialling these new centres, but it is important that destitute asylum seekers should not be able to choose particular forms of support. The Committee will agree that it would be nonsense for accommodation centres to run at half capacity because people have chosen dispersal. We are here not to give that choice, but to facilitate quick decisions on asylum claims so that we meet our international commitments to support asylum seekers. 
 The hon. Gentleman's amendment would make it difficult for us to manage our arrangements effectively and efficiently, especially as they are currently running in parallel. We try to ensure that we make choices for individuals that support them, which is all that the Geneva convention obliges us to do. The amendment would cause administrative havoc, and might result in the system being run at a greater cost than necessary. It also risks creating a gap at the start of the process prior to allocation to a particular place for support, which under the 1999 Act was filled by emergency accommodation while people disputed dispersal. That is an expensive, difficult and highly undesirable way to proceed. The Committee should recognise that we fulfil our commitments under the Geneva convention, which do not involve giving asylum seekers a choice between dispersal or accommodation centres. It is important to avoid that situation, so that we can trial the system effectively.

Richard Allan: I am glad that the Minister found my amendment so helpful and received it in such a positive spirit. I have not often been accused of attempting to create havoc in a Committee. There is a clear difference between a system in which the final accommodation is dictated from the centre, and to which there is no alternative, and a system in which there is choice. We may come back to that point later in the debate.

Angela Eagle: I forgot to make the point that torture victims are not currently dispersed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is an alternative way of dealing with those who have suffered torture.

Richard Allan: Again, it is helpful to have it on the record that the exemption for victims of torture will continue. I hope that the Minister does not mind us raising that issue, but this legislation restates the case for the ''one option only'' system. The Government are tightening up their intentions on choices, and on whether the Secretary of State's decision on where to place an individual can be challenged.

Gregory Barker: How many victims of torture does the hon. Gentleman anticipate that this would apply to?

Richard Allan: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any numbers. The Home Office may be able to do so. The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of
 Torture is a well respected charity in this area that deals with the significant numbers of people who come to the UK each year. We are not talking about thousands, but probably hundreds of people. Those individuals have a difficult time under any system because of the specific nature of their trauma. That trauma often only comes out at a later stage. Under those circumstances it is right to be careful about the type of accommodation to which we send individuals.
 People who have been detained and held in a specific set of circumstances will clearly suffer additional trauma if they fear any replication or threat of replication in this country. Clearly, the replication of torture is not on the table, but the type of accommodation may cause additional trauma. The foundation has quite properly raised those issues throughout our proceedings. I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that those specific routes for exemption still exist. There is perhaps a difference of opinion here over the eventual nature of the asylum scheme, but I will not press the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment made: No. 124, in page 21, line 5, leave out 'section 95' and insert 'sections 95 and 98'.—[Angela Eagle.]

Richard Allan: I beg to move amendment No. 218, in page 21, line 7, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.

Eric Illsley: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 219, in page 21, line 7, at end insert—
'(aa) give priority to meeting the person's particular needs'.
 No. 220, in page 21, line 10, leave out paragraph (b).

Richard Allan: This is where I was a bit previous earlier. These amendments deal with similar issues to those that we have just considered but try to approach them slightly differently by altering the way in which the Secretary of State must make his decisions. We do not challenge the fact that the Secretary of State makes the decision but try to set the criteria by which the decision is made. Amendments to replace ''may'' with ''must'' are a regular feature of Standing Committees, when Oppositions want to impose additional burdens on Secretaries of State and reduce their flexibility, from the Government's point of view, or increase their accountability, from the Opposition's point of view. It depends which side of the Committee one is on. We feel that ''must'' would give us additional reassurance about how a Secretary of State would decide where to place an individual under the asylum support system.
 We have also included an additional criterion, which is to give priority to meeting the person's particular needs. Again, we felt that to be a more appropriate phrasing. It is interesting to note that the Government's criteria start with ''administrative or other matters''. We do not seek to remove the Secretary of State's ability to have regard to administrative matters, but we felt that the priorities were slightly wrong and that the needs of the individual were more important. Amendment No. 220 is designed to approach the question of the household needs. We feel that in order for the criteria 
 to be applied properly, fairly and successfully, household needs must be taken into account, particularly in respect of any children in the family. The package of amendments that we tabled would provide decision-making criteria that we find more reassuring and that would meet requirements more effectively. The current criteria plainly say that the priority is what works for the administration of the system rather than what works for individuals.

Angela Eagle: I am afraid that I shall have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman again: the Government are happy with the word ''may'' as opposed to ''must''. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have recognised the importance of administrative issues in making progress with the asylum process most effectively. That does not mean that we shall ignore the individual needs of those who are in the system, but it is important to be able to take administrative and other considerations into account. Personal circumstances ''may'' be relevant in some cases, but it should not be a case of ''must''.
 As the White Paper said, one way in which we are thinking of allocating places in trial accommodation centres is by port of entry, induction centre or language background. It could be argued that that would be for administrative ease. However, if the amendments were accepted and we always had to take all personal circumstances into account, we could be prevented from allocating people to the centres in the most effective way, both administratively and practically. 
 I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would not do anything crass. That is why the word ''may'' is used instead of ''must''. Otherwise, we might be presented with a range of personal circumstances that we had to take into account, but that we could not cater for. In such decisions, there must always be a balance between practicality and the needs and desires of individuals. Somehow we have to marry those up in a way that provides a coherent system and, we hope, faster and more efficient outcomes. Those are important challenges as it is, and using the word ''must'' might make them more difficult.

Richard Allan: Naturally, I trust the current Home Secretary—with whom I share a city—not to do anything crass, but Opposition Members are always mindful of potential future Home Secretaries.

Angela Eagle: It might be Simon Hughes.

Richard Allan: I rest my case. [Laughter.]
 I hoped that the Minister would accept the need to tighten the legislation with regard to possible future Home Secretaries, but at this stage I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 39, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41 - Asylum-seeker:

Richard Allan: I beg to move amendment No. 221, in page 22, line 15, after 'appellant', insert
'or witness expenses incurred by a witness'.
 The clause deals with the appeal that an individual may make against the refusal to support. Under previous clauses, we have discussed the importance of support, and the Government have rightly provided for an appeal system. We seek to enable the asylum support adjudicator, who considers the appeal against the final refusal of housing and support, to pay witness expenses, as is the custom in other courts and tribunals. That may be the Government's intention anyway, but it is not stated in the Bill, and we felt that it would be helpful to tease that out. 
 As we move towards the greater use of accommodation centres, one can imagine circumstances in which support might be withdrawn from individuals because of incidents that had occurred in them. In those circumstances, people would naturally wish to call witnesses to the incident. Given that those witnesses may be other asylum seekers who also have very limited means, not paying their expenses could prevent people from putting their case effectively. We hope that the Government intend in any event to pay witness expenses but we thought that it was helpful to state that intention clearly in the Bill.

Rosie Winterton: I am happy to tell the Committee that the amendment is unnecessary—that has cheered up the hon. Gentleman. Section 96(1)(c) of the 1999 Act already allows us to meet the expenses of witnesses who attend an asylum appeal in respect of a supported asylum seeker. Section 103(9) of that Act, which is reproduced in the new section 103B inserted by clause 41, allows us to meet the expenses of a witness attending an asylum support hearing and section 96(2) allows for forms of support other than those specified in section 96(1) to be provided where the circumstances are exceptional. NASS caseworkers who are responsible for administering such payments have instructions to that effect. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Richard Allan: I am grateful to the Minister for such a positive response, and I accept her advice. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Richard Allan: I beg to move amendment No. 222, in page 22, line 16, at end add—
'103C 
 (1) The Secretary of State may make a grant to a voluntary organisation which provides— 
 (i) advice or assistance to persons who have a right of appeal under this Part; 
 (ii) other services for the welfare of those persons. 
 (2) A grant under this section may be subject to terms or conditions (which may include conditions as to repayment).'.
 I am not sure whether we will get such a positive response to this amendment—something tells me that 
 the Minister may be less forthcoming on it, but I stand to be corrected. We are trying to tease out the other aspect of the tribunal hearing. Having looked at the issue of witnesses to which she responded positively, we now consider the possibility of assistance being given to an individual attending a hearing. Bodies such as the Immigration Advisory Service, the Refugee Legal Centre and others provide advice to individuals going through the process of making an asylum claim; those bodies are not very generously funded and there are limitations to their ability to represent individuals. It would again be helpful to state in the Bill that it is appropriate for the tribunal making the decision to be able to fund organisations offering advice and assistance to individuals going to an appeal at that level—as we have established, it is a significant level in terms of gaining access to support, because means of subsistence is in some ways almost as significant as the asylum claim. 
 I hope that the Government intend in any case to ensure that that assistance and advice are available but it would be beneficial to relate that explicitly to appeals on support issues. There should be an explicit reference to the ability to gain support from one of the organisations in the field.

Rosie Winterton: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but I will not be able to make him as happy as I did last time. The Government are not convinced that asylum seekers appealing against refusal or early termination of their support need access to legal advice or assistance in representation. Generally speaking, the reason for early termination of support is based on fact: the asylum seeker has left accommodation or has breached a condition on which support was granted. There is some crossover with our earlier debate on breach of conditions. All asylum seekers are informed of the conditions on which support is offered and an additional briefing during the induction centre process will reinforce that message. If asylum seekers choose to ignore that information they will have to take the consequences of doing so. It would not make sense for the Home Office to grant fund the provision of welfare services to those asylum seekers whose support has been terminated early and who are appealing against that decision. Asylum seekers can go to one of the voluntary organisations that deal with these matters for advice, but we are not talking about giving legal aid in these circumstances.
 I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he understands the reasons why we cannot agree to the amendment.

Richard Allan: One out of two was not bad. I am disappointed that there is not more clarity about the level of support. I want to press the Minister on the ability of the Immigration Advisory Service and the Refugee Legal Centre to support asylum seekers through these complex procedures. Members of Parliament, especially those who represent London constituencies, know that those who work in the voluntary sector are very stretched, as we deal with the spillover from their case loads in our surgeries, as is appropriate to our duties.
 I will not press the amendment, but I register my hope that the Government will continue to review funding for the voluntary sector organisations that give advice to asylum seekers to enable them to keep up with the growing demand for their services. That demand could be made even higher by the additional requirements in the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42 - Voluntary departure from United Kingdom

Angela Eagle: I beg to move amendment No. 250, in page 22, line 41, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
'(5) The following provisions of the Immigration Act 1971 (c.77) shall cease to have effect— 
 (a) section 29 (contributions to expenses of persons returning abroad), and 
 (b) section 31(d) (expenses).'.
 Clause 42 replaces section 29 of the Immigration Act 1971, which enables assistance to be given to voluntary leavers, who in many cases will be failed asylum seekers. The clause broadens that assistance; it includes travel expenses, immediate arrival and reception costs, costs for settlement in a new place of residence and new items such as explore-and-prepare visits for people who wish to return to a country that may have failed but is getting on its feet again. 
 The amendment is technical, and consequential on our replacing section 29 of the Immigration Act 1971 with clause 42. It provides that section 29 and the reference to it in that Act shall cease to have effect. It does not affect the substance of the clause and I hope that the Committee will accept it. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 42, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43 - International projects

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Cheryl Gillan: I pay tribute to the organisations that have gone to so much trouble to brief members of the Committee on various aspects of the Bill. I draw the Committee's attention to a matter raised by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which has done some valuable work on the Bill. NACAB states that clause 43 provides a power for the Home Secretary to establish a refugee resettlement programme under which a small number of persons recognised as refugees while still abroad could be accepted for resettlement in the United Kingdom. The association welcomes the establishment of such a resettlement programme—with the proviso that it should not lead to a two-tier asylum determination process whereby those who arrive at the UK's borders independently are regarded as queue-jumpers and therefore undeserving of the UK's protection,
 whatever the merits of their asylum claim. It seeks the Minister's assurance on that point.
 Subsection (2) sets out financial provisions. Does the Minister have some idea of the level of budget provision these programmes will attract? From the notes on the clause we are aware that pilot projects have been undertaken. Will she explain how many have been completed and whether any further pilots are planned, or whether the Ministry is satisfied that the piloting exercise has been exhausted? 
 Subsections (2)(a) and (b) provide only for financial support to international organisations that arrange or participate in projects of the kind described in subsection (1). I would like an assurance that the drafting does not preclude, for example, the secondment of suitable personnel to international organisations—or does the Minister have in mind purely financial assistance with no consideration for any other type of assistance under (2)(a) and (b)?

Richard Allan: I have a couple of points to raise about how individuals resettled from the UK may be affected in future if their resettlement breaks down. We welcome the focus on international projects. In the current circumstances in Sri Lanka, for example, individuals coming to the UK as asylum seekers may be granted refugee status, but as Sri Lanka moves to a more peaceful and stable situation, international efforts to rebuild the Sri Lankan community within Sri Lanka may be appropriate, which may affect individuals here. There is no certainty about the future, so with any resettlement programmes or international projects to assist migrants to return to another country it is important to clarify what would happen if those projects were to break down and the migrants needed to return to the UK because of unforeseen circumstances.
 At what level do the Government anticipate these plans working? Is it at all levels, be it the European Union, the United Nations, or the UNHCR? How do we expect the criteria for the UK engagement in projects to be set? 
 In a domestic Bill dealing with asylum and immigration issues it is helpful to have a reference to international projects as a reminder of the fact that refugee crises primarily affect countries far from the United Kingdom. Whatever questions anyone raises in the UK about tens of thousands of asylum seekers, the problems are multiplied to the nth degree in poor countries such as those in sub-Saharan Africa, which accept many hundreds of thousands of refugees and migrants. 
 I hope that the that the Government will follow that commitment, in the interests not just of the United Kingdom but of many other countries with a far more serious refugee crisis than us.

Angela Eagle: I hope that my answers will satisfy members of the Committee about this part of the Bill.
 The resettlement programme poses two separate issues: the return of migrants to their country of origin, and resettlement, which is a formal gateway into the country of people recognised as refugees by the UNHCR. For them, the resettlement programme 
 will develop as a result of the powers in the Bill: it will be a toe in the water. The purpose of the resettlement programme is to deal with a problem that many hon. Members often refer to—that people cannot enter the country legally in order to claim asylum. We are creating legal routes into the country. 
 Another important objective is to save refugees from the people smugglers and traffickers who profit mightily and obscenely from their trade in human misery. We are planning to develop the resettlement programme in association with the UNHCR. The resettlement programme will allow us to take into this country from abroad people who have already been classified as refugees. Initially, we are thinking in terms of about 500 people—believe it or not, making it one of the largest resettlement programmes in the European Union. The USA takes 78,000 a year, so ours will certainly not be the largest in the world, but it will be an important first step towards creating a legal gateway into the country for people classified as genuine refugees—and it will keep them out the hands of the people traffickers. 
 Some of the issues point the other way, to voluntary return to countries of origin. Clause 42 deals more explicitly with that, in so far as it allows us to spend money to facilitate voluntary return projects more practically than in the past. I hope that it will lead to sustainable, coherent return for failed asylum seekers or those who want to go back to their countries of origin—Afghanistan is an obvious example—when things are getting better, to rebuild their country. We hope that Sri Lanka will prove to be another positive example. 
 I shall now deal with the issues raised by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). There is no question of a two-tier process—a refugee is a refugee—but we are anxious to develop safer ways of acknowledging refugee status and legal gateways in order to crack down on the activities of people smugglers. That is what the resettlement programme is intended to halt. Creating such a gateway under the powers in the clause is an humanitarian tool. 
 Currently, such work is funded under the powers of the Appropriation Act, which provides a legal basis. However, it would be more flexible if we had our own powers to fund rather than having to rely on that Act, which limits project expenditure to short-term and one-off projects that do not run for longer than two years or whose individual costs do not exceed £900,000. Under the comprehensive spending review process 2002, we shall attempt to create some funding—I cannot tell the hon. Lady exactly how much—in order to develop sustainable return programmes for failed asylum seekers or those who wish to return. 
 I was asked whether financial support includes secondment of staff. Yes, it does. We provide a financial benefit to the relevant international organisation. We know from our work with international policing and immigration organisations and international non-governmental organisations that great mutual benefit can be gained from 
 secondments and support. The hon. Lady will know that we also work closely with the International Organisation for Migration in respect of voluntary returns, among other issues. We already have some experience, but we wish to expand it. The clauses are part of an holistic approach to immigration whereby we consider the difficulties in source countries and how the Home Office can help. There is also a role for Governments throughout the European Union and the developed world who experience problems of economic migration to work together to see what they can do to help source countries to stabilise. It is in everyone's interests to do so. The clauses give us the necessary powers to continue to develop work in this area more unambiguously.

Neil Gerrard: This is a welcome and positive development, which will allow us to consider resettlement programmes. Clause 43 covers more than refugees, to which only part of the power relates. That has been missing in our policies for a long time. I am pleased that the Conservative party is rejecting the two-tier system that they set out to create in 1996. They made a simple but flawed distinction between people who applied for asylum at ports of entry and those who applied in country. Those who applied for asylum at ports of entry would receive support, but those who applied in country would be deprived of it, on the flawed assumption that those two classes of people had different justifications for asylum claims. It was only because of the court case that followed those proposals that in-country applicants were left with any support through the local authorities.
 My concern about the two-tier system is not so much that different rules may be applied but that different attitudes may be generated. We all know of problematic attitudes towards asylum seekers, and we must be careful to make it clear that we will not pursue the argument that those who undertake the resettlement programme are genuine, whereas others who do not undertake it are not. 
 I appreciate that we are dipping our toes into the water, but I am not clear how the resettlement programmes will function or how decisions will be taken about who is eligible to come as a refugee through them. The nearest and most recent equivalent was the humanitarian evacuation programme from Kosovo. The UNHCR acted as the gatekeeper and in effect decided who was suitable to come as part of that programme. That almost implies that an agency other than the Home Office will decide whether an asylum claim is justified. What is the interface between the two? Will the Minister say whether the Home Office will be involved in another country's decision to allow someone through that gateway? 
 I also welcome the support that is being suggested for people who are returning, whether they are doing so voluntarily or are being removed from the country. Unquestionably, we do not treat people humanely at present. They may suddenly find themselves on a plane with their family with no financial support to start to re-establish themselves. It will be interesting to see how this part of the Bill develops. The question remains 
 who will decide who gets on to the programme, and I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments.

Gregory Barker: I should like to address a few comments to the Minister on clause 42.

Eric Illsley: Order. We are discussing clause 43.

Gregory Barker: I beg your pardon, Mr. Illsley.

Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) made some welcome comments about the powers in clause 43 and what they enable us to do. We have not made final decisions on the matter, and we are discussing how we can develop the resettlement programme with the UNHCR and other interested parties. The criteria for resettlement are that the refugee's life, liberty, safety, health or other fundamental human rights are at risk in the country where they sought refuge, and once the UNHCR believes that someone may be suitable for resettlement, they will put them forward for consideration by us. We have not yet decided in detail how we will deal with that and are consulting other countries that have more experience of resettlement than we do. They include the United States of America, Canada and Australia, which all have much larger resettlement programmes. We will examine potential specific criteria that could be applied in addition by the UK, which may include security screening.
 The UNHCR will then sift applications that concern them and pass appropriate cases to us for consideration. Field officers will ensure that each resettlement candidate has a good understanding of what life in the UK will be like and what will happen to them on arrival. The UNHCR oversees all resettlement programmes and assesses global resettlement needs annually. At this stage, we do not want the UNHCR to be responsible for assessing whether individuals meet UK-specific sifting criteria. The final decision on whom to accept from will be for the UK. We are at the early stages of working out how the resettlement programme will come into effect, but I hope that that gives my hon. Friend some idea of how we see it working.

Cheryl Gillan: I thank the Minister for her assurances on both the secondment and the point raised by NACAB. Far be it from me to make any spending commitments for the official Opposition, but I am extremely pleased that she is taking a grip on the finances of the potential projects. There is no doubt that investing in advance will save both money in the long term and human misery by ensuring that, as she said earlier, people are taken out of the hands of traffickers.
 Will she ensure that the Opposition are aware at an early stage of any discussions on the expansion of the projects? We all take a great deal of interest in the matters, irrespective of our political party. I am pleased with what the Minister had to say and hope that she is successful in her negotiations to get suitable investment.

Gregory Barker: I am particularly pleased to see arrangements that allow the Secretary of State to assist with the settlement of migrants both in the
 United Kingdom and elsewhere. Many people who come to the UK are in a winner-takes-all lottery. Either they are allowed to remain in the United Kingdom with the long-term potential to apply for citizenship and all the benefits that that brings, or they face the prospect of being turned out of the country and perhaps sent back to socially or economically unsettled parts of the world.
 Despite the fact that we have spent most of our time in Committee discussing arrangements for the people who stay in the United Kingdom, the reality is that, according the latest figures, 78 per cent. of asylum seekers are not given leave to remain. We do a great injustice if we do not focus on the ultimate destination and fate of the vast majority of people who enter this country, which is not to remain here. We need to make far more provision for such asylum seekers, who are the vast majority of the total, to enjoy quality of life, even if they do not remain in the UK. We need to ensure that there are proper counselling facilities in accommodation centres, for example, to prepare people for returning to their country of origin or elsewhere and that proper welfare provision is made for them and their dependants to handle that transition properly, so that we do not just push them through a rough sorting process that allows the lucky ones to stay and turns everyone else out. A more equitable system that looks after the interests of all asylum seekers, whether they remain here or are returned elsewhere, may also prevent the current situation of so many people disappearing from accommodation centres or other places.

David Lammy: It is wonderful to hear a younger occupant of the Conservative Back Benches speak in such inclusive terms about asylum seekers and refugees. When the hon. Gentleman says that he would like greater provision for those asylum seekers, whether they stay here or leave the country, does he see the Government as sole providers of such help or is he thinking in terms of an EU initiative or another wider scheme?

Gregory Barker: I am sure that any international co-operation, whether through the EU, the Department for International Development or the United Nations, would have a greater chance of being more effective. However, international co-operation must not diminish our national responsibility to ensure that people coming into the country are resettled—we know that 78 per cent. of them will not stay here. Despite all the modifications to the system that we have discussed, no one anticipates that they will lead to a step change in the numbers ultimately able to stay in the country. The numbers included in a resettlement programme are tiny compared with the overall number of people trying to enter the country and a much broader, holistic solution that looks at the welfare and eventual destination of people coming here is to be welcomed. If the clause enhances a Secretary of State's ability to do that, whether through financial payments or provision of care through longer-term assessment of the needs of asylum seekers, that is also to be welcomed.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44 - Repeal of spent provisions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Angela Eagle: I could not let the clause, which repeals sections of the 1999 Act that provide for the abolition of the voucher system of asylum support, to go by without simply acknowledging it.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 - Detention by secretary of state

Rosie Winterton: I beg to move amendment No. 120, in page 24, line 15, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
'(3) A provision of Schedule 2 to that Act about a person who is detained or liable to detention under that Schedule shall apply to a person who is detained or liable to detention under this section: and for that purpose— 
 (a) a reference to paragraph 16 of that Schedule shall be taken to include a reference to this section, 
 (b) a reference in paragraph 21 of that Schedule to an immigration officer shall be taken to include a reference to the Secretary of State, and 
 (c) a reference to detention under that Schedule or under a provision or Part of that Schedule shall be taken to include a reference to detention under this section.'.

Eric Illsley: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 291, in page 24, line 46, at end add—
'( ) Section 53 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c.33) (bail) shall be amended as follows— 
 (a) at the end of subsection (1) add ''or under section 45 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002'', and 
 (b) at the end of subsection (3)(a) add ''or under section 45 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002''. 
 ( ) Section 23(2) of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (c.24) (detention of suspected international terrorist) shall be amended as follows— 
 (a) omit ''and'' after paragraph (a), and 
 (b) after paragraph (b) add— 
 '', and 
 (c) section 45 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention by Secretary of State).'' '.

Rosie Winterton: The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to authorise the detention of certain categories of person, currently liable to detention on the authority of an immigration officer. It does not mean that people who cannot currently be detained will be liable to detention in future and it does not affect the number of people who will be detained. It increases the number of people able to authorise detention.
 Amendment No. 290 is primarily a drafting change and is a substitute for existing provisions. Without that consequential amendment, the relevant provisions of schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 would not apply to persons detained under the clause, including the ability to seek and be granted bail and the granting of temporary admission or temporary release. It merely puts those detained under the clause on the same footing as those detained under the powers of detention in the 1971 Act. 
 Without amendment No. 291, another consequential amendment, persons detained under the clause would fall outside the scope of the regulations relating to bail applications made under section 53 of the 1999 Act. The regulations to be made under that section have yet to be drafted but we intend that they should include a presumption to be granted bail in prescribed circumstances. Section 53 of the 1999 Act at present relates only to detention under the powers contained in the 1971 Act. Clause 45 gives a free-standing power to detain, and persons detained under that power would therefore be excluded. The amendment to section 53 of the 1999 Act rectifies that and ensures consistency of approach. A similar position applies in relation to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. 
 I hope that that explains the Government's position on the amendments and that the Committee will accept them. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Four o'clock.